[DC] Jackasses to derail Metro rail expansion

[Lonestar]

From the Examiner

Rail issue a focal point in election year

Fairfax County -
For incumbents on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the Dulles rail issue could not have come to a head at a worse time.

With all 10 members up for election in November, the course of the mammoth rail extension is threatening to turn into a political liability for those running for another term. Supervisors are now faced with deciding whether to fund the project with an unpopular aerial rail through Tysons Corner, or withhold $400 million in order to pressure the state to build a tunnel under Tysons and put the entire 23-mile project out to bid.

A decision either way could have ramifications on the political future of the supervisors. If the board signs off on the funds, it would be against the wishes of many supporters of the Tysons tunnel, which is one of the largest local movements of any kind in Northern Virginia’s recent history.

A refusal, however, could block the entire project for the foreseeable future by removing a key source of local funding. The loss of mass transit in the Dulles Corridor could be a greater political blow than the loss of a tunnel, especially in the areas west of Tysons.

For Carl Lundie, who lives in the Tysons area and supports the tunnel movement, a decision to vote to fund the aerial track and not demand competitive bidding would “indicate a non-willingness to listen to the citizens.”

“Most of the citizens want an open bid,” he said.

He said the outcome could potentially affect his vote. While he said he already supports Charlie Hall, the primary opponent of Democrat Linda Smyth in the Providence District race, he’s undecided on the re-election bid of Chairman Gerald Connolly, who is elected countywide.

[email protected]

Let me say that these assholes are full of it. Anyone who has been following this has primarily been bitching about how construction of a elevated rail would be causing temporary traffic halts in Tysons Corner....which is a nightmare to begin with. The whole "open bid" thing is bullshit, because they are pushing for one gi-normus tunnel instead, and I am having a hard time think that would some how be cheaper than an elevated rail system.

Basically, the Tysons Corner assholes are pissed that their Lexuses will be bumper to bumper whenever construction reaches a major roadway.

[Davis 51]

Basically, the Tysons Corner assholes are pissed that their Lexuses will be bumper to bumper whenever construction reaches a major roadway.

No shit. I drive in Tysons practically every day. And it is a fucking nightmare. If half the benefits that the "Tysons Tunnel" guys claim a underground system would bring are true, I would wholeheartedly support them.

[Lancer]

Last time I checked, the reason why the Board of Supervisors opposed the plan was because they haven't even been allowed to see the contract yet, not because of th tunnel-pushers.

[Lancer]

Ah, here we go:

FAIRFAX, Va. - A vote taking place in two weeks could change the region for the next century or derail a 23-mile Metro extension to Dulles International Airport.

With hundreds of tunnel supporters looking on, the Fairfax Board of Supervisors decided on Monday to go ahead with a vote on June 18.

The county has to approve 16 percent of the funding for the $2.6 billion project.

But the board is unhappy with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which would build the extension, because the board still has not seen the contract.

"We are not gonna have a vote on the June 18 if that contract is not available to the board," Connolly says.

The secrecy of the contract, and the lack of competitive bidding are two of the reasons why the tunnel supporters want to revisit the concept.

Some board members say they are unwilling to reconsider a tunnel, fearing it will set the project back years.

The Board has indicated in the past that it would prefer a tunnel but Connolly says the Federal Transit Administration has produced another report backing the aerial route.

The tunnel would cause "complications that could add as much as $300 million to the cost of the project and could delay it as much as three years," Connolly says.

"That was a pretty sobering analysis for all of us," he says.

Cost estimates for the first 11 miles of the 23-mile project are about $2.4 billion, with the whole project in the neighborhood of $4 billion.

But Tysonstunnel.org President Scott Monet says the FTA still left the final approval to the locals.

"The petition response said it's up to the locals to decide whether they wish for competitive bidding and whether they wish for a tunnel. They did not say that would jeopardize the $900 million," he says. "They need to reiterate how important competitive bidding is and how important that tunnel for Tysons Corner is."

(Copyright 2007 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

[Lonestar]

I'll check tomorrow(Heading to bed) but the reason why I am skeptical of that claim is that I recall reading letters in the Examiner from Tysons Corner politicos bitchin' about how it was going to snarl traffic, and magically this contract complaint came out of thin air.

[Dennis Toy]

All i can say is, if they build an elevated rail, Tysons Corner is screwed. Its going to be nothing more than sprawl and disconnected downtown area. A tunnel althrough expensive will allow a town-like setting to be made.

[CmdrWilkens]

All i can say is, if they build an elevated rail, Tysons Corner is screwed. Its going to be nothing more than sprawl and disconnected downtown area. A tunnel althrough expensive will allow a town-like setting to be made.

Tyson's is ALREADY screwed. Whether this goes in as elevated or underground won't affect that in any way. The whole of Northern Virginia was basically built with the idea of cramming as much of the "American Dream" as you could into every parcel that you could find. If you look at development patterns in Northern VA versus Central MD you see the differnece between crazy car driven growth and slower service conditioned growth that at least tries to match capacities to development, all that along with a big push for things like the purple line which would be a far better use of money that the freaking Tyson's Tunnel.

[Dennis Toy]

Dennis Toy wrote:
All i can say is, if they build an elevated rail, Tysons Corner is screwed. Its going to be nothing more than sprawl and disconnected downtown area. A tunnel althrough expensive will allow a town-like setting to be made.


Tyson's is ALREADY screwed. Whether this goes in as elevated or underground won't affect that in any way. The whole of Northern Virginia was basically built with the idea of cramming as much of the "American Dream" as you could into every parcel that you could find. If you look at development patterns in Northern VA versus Central MD you see the differnece between crazy car driven growth and slower service conditioned growth that at least tries to match capacities to development, all that along with a big push for things like the purple line which would be a far better use of money that the freaking Tyson's Tunnel.

I think your kinda exaggerating when you talk of VA being built around the car culture. Look at the development along the Orange Line going to Vienna. It is built around Transit. You could say it is a recent invention.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hey, guess what, in 25 years you're going to be glad there is an elevated line to take you into the downtown, since you won't have a car anymore, and neither will anyone else in Tyson's Corner. There will be tracks running where surface streets used to go by that point.

[Dennis Toy]

Hey, guess what, in 25 years you're going to be glad there is an elevated line to take you into the downtown, since you won't have a car anymore, and neither will anyone else in Tyson's Corner. There will be tracks running where surface streets used to go by that point.

and why on pray-tell would anyone not have a car in Tysons Corner?

[phongn]

and why on pray-tell would anyone not have a car in Tysons Corner?

Because fuel prices will make it economically infeasible for all but wealthy to operate a car.

[Aeolus]

and why on pray-tell would anyone not have a car in Tysons Corner?

Because fuel prices will make it economically infeasible for all but wealthy to operate a car.

Once gas reaches a high enough price other fuels or power sources would become economically viable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Once gas reaches a high enough price other fuels or power sources would become economically viable.

HAHAH! You really have no idea, do you?

Economically viable, perhaps, but thermodynamically viable?

We aren't going to have enough excess energy to build electric cars. We certainly aren't going to be able to waste energy on the ludicrous luxury of cracking hydrogen, or growing food to turn into fuel.

Magic woo-woo economics, which is based on everyone being perfectly rational (it was when I realized this that I gave up on capitalism), has no mechanism for taking into account what happens when you massively slash the amount of energy available to your society.

Every mass transit project in the USA today is of utterly critical importance to our national survival. We're in a race against time to correct seventy years of neglect and hubris.

[Aeolus]

Once gas reaches a high enough price other fuels or power sources would become economically viable.

HAHAH! You really have no idea, do you?

Economically viable, perhaps, but thermodynamically viable?

We aren't going to have enough excess energy to build electric cars. We certainly aren't going to be able to waste energy on the ludicrous luxury of cracking hydrogen, or growing food to turn into fuel.

Magic woo-woo economics, which is based on everyone being perfectly rational (it was when I realized this that I gave up on capitalism), has no mechanism for taking into account what happens when you massively slash the amount of energy available to your society.

Every mass transit project in the USA today is of utterly critical importance to our national survival. We're in a race against time to correct seventy years of neglect and hubris.

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

[aerius]

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

The short version is because the people, companies, and governments don't want to, and by the time they come to their senses it'll be too late.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

Building and installing more efficient equipment requires energy.

Building powerplants requires energy.

Where is this energy going to come from after peak oil?

That's right, the government is going to have to take away all your silly energy-using toys (effectively) to use the grid power that will save for powering the equipment and the construction sites for building nuclear reactors, geothermal collectors, wave-energy bouys, tidal emplacements, new dams and new generators for dams, stringing cantenary over the railroads for electrical operation, etc.

Depending on how bad things get you may not even have electrical power at home. If you do, expect to spend the next several decades in rolling blackouts with power only about half the week, until you get old and die, unless you're smart and wealthy enough to install your own renewable generating equipment at home.

The only people able to afford cars in America's future are going to be the ones who buy Ferraris today. Lexuses put you just a bit outside of range of money you'll need.

[Aeolus]

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

The short version is because the people, companies, and governments don't want to, and by the time they come to their senses it'll be too late.

thats assuming a very rapid rise in the price of oil. Isn't a steadily increasing price over the next several decades more likely?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

The short version is because the people, companies, and governments don't want to, and by the time they come to their senses it'll be too late.

thats assuming a very rapid rise in the price of oil. Isn't a steadily increasing price over the next several decades more likely?

*groans*

Stop thinking in terms of price and start thinking in terms of energy potential.

[CmdrWilkens]

And we cant build more powerplants because? We can't increase efficiency because?

The short version is because the people, companies, and governments don't want to, and by the time they come to their senses it'll be too late.

thats assuming a very rapid rise in the price of oil. Isn't a steadily increasing price over the next several decades more likely?

While Marina gave the quick reply I'll try to get a bit more technical.

Right now in order to ship products from point A to point B takes ENERGY. We don't think about it that way but lets take the example of something as simple as bread. It takes ENERGY (supplied by an petroleum prodcuts) for the farmer to fertilize the wheat. It takes ENERGY (again petroleum based) for him to run the reaper which collects the wheat. It takes ENERGY (still petroleum based) to run the truck which ships the wheat to the bakery. It takes energy (probably coal based but possibly natural gas or nuclear) to operate the bakery and make the bread. It takes energy (petroleum based) to make the wrapping (petroleum based) which the bread is shipped in. It takes ENERGY (petroleum based again) to ship the bread to the supermarket and it takes you ENERGY (petroleum based) to drive your car to the supermarket.

That's a crap load of energy to get something as simple as wheat from being a seed to being bread on your table and the vast majority of the energy is supplied by petroleum.

Now here's the real kicker:

Energy Available from Petroleum is Directly Related to Volume of Petroleum produts available.

Peak oil means that we have hit the MAXIMUM volume of Petroleum Avaialble which also means we have hit the MAXIMUM of Energy Available from Pretroleum (or nearly enough, increased efficiency could keep us at peak levels for a few years but that's unlikely at best).

Basically once peak oil hits we will not be able to expand our use of energy and if fact will have to severly reduce it UNLESS we switch to a source other than petroleum products. This isn't a matter of cost, someone will always be able to afford using petroleum the problme is that even if it was free there wouldn't be as much available to use which means somebody in that energy chain I outlined above is gonna not be able to do what they used to do.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And population expansion guarantees that demand will continue to rise, reducing the amount available to everyone steadily.

Since trying to halt population expansion would require more draconian measures than eliminating electrical service to private homes and irrelevant businesses (restaurants, dry-cleaners, etc), the government can just reassert its electrical monopoly and refusal to provide service to anything other than essential locations. In the same way, the government will have to monopolize all remaining oil--and ban any private individual from using it. The railroads will get the bulk of the remaining oil to keep people from starving to death. This will allow us to use the electrical grid to power industries which are building offsets--the generators for nuke plants, geothermal, etc, as I stated. The railroads will transport those materials to their locations, where they will be erected in a large part with brute force, using a Civilian Conservation Corps of all the people laid off from defunct corporations like Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.

All of this could have been avoided if we'd started working on offsets twenty years ago, but since we're still ignoring this issue to the present day, this is what the future is going to look like.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For example, around 1.7 trillion ton-miles of traffic in the United States goes by railroad per 2006; 1.3 trillion ton-miles of traffic goes by truck. Another 600 billion ton-miles goes by pipeline. For the moment we'll assume that the pipeline figures are irrelevant; they will probably still exist after peak-oil but be used for carrying water from desalination plants to the interior for irrigation to maintain agricultural production in the face of the concurrent problem of global warming.

There are no figures available for intracoastal, river, and canal shipping, sadly; but all of these will at the least remain the same, and thousands of additional miles of canals must be built, interior waterways improved, and thousands of new shallow-draft ships and barges built to navigate them, all preferably using nuclear power. There are about 5,000km of strategic reserve track (not in use but with rails still intact) and 50,000km of railbanked track (route intact but track ripped up, usually as trails). That would boost US track from 240,000km to 295,000km. That figure does include double-track; and the United States could easily add tens of thousands of kilometers of additional double-track, triple-track, and in some cases, quadruple-track (for instance the Pennsylvania Railroad's old mainline from New York to Chicago was called the "Broadway" for being quadruple tracked--it's now down to two tracks, but the other two tracks could be fairly easily restored). New track is being added anyway, for instance the fact that the BNSF has completely double-tracked their Chicago - LA transcon and are starting to triple-track sections. A few thousand more km of lines are largely intact despite not being protected at all, and plans exist for economically useful entirely new track in some areas. More can be built to service grain elevators and etc.

Not all of the railbanked track is mainline. A lot of it is very critical, being interurban lines and other short lines in highly urban environments. All of these tracks can be restored to allow direct freight delivery to businesses, ultimately. A lot of roads in cities can be ripped up in favour of trolley service, which can ultimately deliver boxcars directly to downtown businesses during the night when the trolleys aren't running.

Other avenues for expansion of suburban commuter track, in addition to upgrading existing lines, restoring railbanked lines, and replacing road corridors (anything where at least three lanes can be ripped out could be used for a highly effecient main commuter route, and a lighter interurban could operate in place of even one lane if there were places for passing sidings and platforms to the side), another possibility is the very large corridors for electric transmission lines; these lead right into the cities and are invariably empty grass which can handle at least one track and in many other cases more.

San Diego provides an excellent example of how to make this work, in the fact that their electrically powered light-rail system is nonetheless built to FRA standards so that a private railroad contracted to handle freight can deliver freight cars on the lines to area businesses. It's very crucial to establish such connections.

The ultimate goal should be to move about 500 billion ton-miles of the existing traffic to canals, rivers, and coastwise traffic, while dumping most of the further increases there (though as a practical matter most won't go there--only bulk materials will travel that way. But I'm talking about in numerical terms, shifting bulk transport from railroads to canals, and then shifting all other transport which is currently done by roads and aircraft to rails), while shifting about another 800 billion ton-miles to railroads, with only a limited amount (about the same as current air-freight traffic domestically) remaining with trucks for deliveries in areas where no railroads are available.

At the same time the development of the national and North American rail passenger network should be such that it can entirely replace domestic air travel and air travel to Canada, Mexico, and Central America, along with car travel the same. This will require an immense investment even with the fact that the amount of traffic will plunge as people can afford fewer trips. I suppose, though slow and undesirable, the sheer quantities mean that some people will be willing to travel by boat in lieu of other solutions; some very low density routes where rail would not be economic even in the future, or the areas are simply inaccessible to the railroad, will have to be served by fuel-cell buses as a government funded service, if the population cannot for whatever reasons be relocated.

Barges are 11 times more efficient than trucks; trains are 6 times more efficient. More to the point, both can be powered by non-hydrocarbon sources in a very efficient fashion, not requiring expensive materials or the extremely expensive cracking process of producing hydrogen.

[K. A. Pital]

"Stop thinking in terms of money and think in terms of energy". I love when I hear that, my inner technocrat rejoices.

It really feels that humanity is just standing somewhere before the Kardashev barrier to the next civilization type and desperately seeking an effective way out of the one-planet energy use trap.